NCEA replacement proposals - some analysis & considerations

Every young person in Aotearoa New Zealand deserves the chance to succeed in a qualifications and assessment system that meets their needs and keeps them at the centre. NCEA is not perfect but evolution and refinement of the system will produce the most settled environment and best outcomes for our learners.

In introducing the proposal the Minister has made some large sweeping statements including that NCEA is broken and must be scrapped. That the flexibility of the system has been over-used and that this means that programmes of teaching and learning are not “coherent and consistent”.

Schools have worked hard to devise course offerings that meet the needs of their communities and that a wide range of achievements have been recognised on learners’ Records of Achievement and by the NCEA. PPTA is concerned that the government’s proposals represent an overcorrection from the flexibility of the present system and this will disadvantage students.

The Government says that some skills and knowledge “shouldn’t count” towards a school qualification.

An underlying philosophy of a standards-based qualification regime is that achievement is recognised and every student is provided the opportunity to succeed. A strength of the NCEA is that it can encourage creativity and individual expression, and formally recognise diverse experiences.

The Government says that the NCEA is not recognised or valued internationally. This is factually incorrect. It’s this country’s formal, national, secondary school qualification. The Government damages NCEA’s credibility by making these statements.

The Government says that a national qualification is “about having a set of standards for teachers to teach to.” That describes the role of the curriculum, and the development and delivery of meaningful programmes in schools. This confusion between what is taught and learned, and how that is evaluated and recorded, permeates the Government’s announcements.

The Government proposal is for a list of “required subjects” to contribute to the NCEA.

Up till 2002, the Universities Entrance Board effectively determined the content of school awards such as School Certificate, and therefore constrained schools’ innovation. For decades we’ve had the flexibility to design meaningful programmes at the local level and have them recognised within the NCEA. Now, the Government wants to take over and decide what’s acceptable and “approved”. The curriculum is being rewritten into subjects but this work has not been completed or embedded and so it is concerning that such a big jump is being announced for assessment.

The Government proposal is for a number of vocational ‘subjects’ to be included on the approved subjects list.

The Government’s plan is that the Industry Skill Boards (ISBs) will “work with industry” to devise these ‘subjects’, which are currently no more than political ideas. ISCs haven’t been established yet and will inherit the workloads and lack of resourcing evident in the Workforce Development Councils that are soon to be abolished. And there’s no guarantee that the industry groups the Government thinks are acceptable will play ball. There’s also no hint of an understanding of the future staffing and resourcing implications for schools.

The Government proposal is that L1 NCEA will be abolished and replaced by a Foundational Skills Award at Year 11 to recognise literacy and numeracy skills.

The extremely poor support for the implementation of Level 1 created an enormous amount of frustration in schools. Any replacement of level one will need to be done with far more resourcing. A concern we have with this proposal is that “passing” the Foundational Award is a prerequisite for receiving the new L2 qualification. Remember the second-year fifth formers who’d failed to accumulate 200 marks in the days of School Certificate, so were held back and made to repeat their Fifth Form (Year 11). This prerequisite returns to an attitude that penalises the students who are often already at a disadvantage.

The Government has indicated that externally assessed components will be incentivised (not required) in all subjects.

This position is based on the unfounded assumption that exams are more dependable than other forms of assessment. Exams are undoubtedly quite successful in evaluating how well learners cope with exams. In this way, they tend to favour learners from more advantaged backgrounds. The government's comments around AI marking are premature and misaligned with the current state of AI capability. There has been no meaningful engagement with the profession, no consideration of the role of teacher professional judgment, or the importance of learner engagement. The position appears entirely speculative and disconnected from the realities of classroom practice.

The MOE has indicated that feedback on the necessity for external and internal assessment will be important in the final decision on the ‘requirements’ for each subject.

The Government proposal is to replace the “Excellence and Achieved” (sic) grades currently used (which are “difficult to understand”) with “more straightforward subject marking”. This is identified as a mark out of 100 and a letter grade of A-E.

The Government insists that they are not seeking to change one “good thing about NCEA” which is that earlier systems compared students against each other. The Government’s proposal shows a 46% (D) grade as a fail and a 50% (C) grade as a pass. As far as the public sees it, one of these is ‘better’ than the other. We are concerned that this is a return to a way of thinking that meant if you were a second-language learner, someone less comfortable in a school environment, disabled or neurodivergent, you were set up for failure. To characterise three grade boundaries, Achieved, Merit and Excellence as difficult to understand is to demean the intelligence of most.

The Government proposal is that learners will have to “take five subjects and achieve at least four” to be granted the L2 and L3 certificates.

This rationing of success is exactly what abandoning School Certificate and the other ranking devices was intended to overcome. This is a significant change in philosophy from qualifications recording achievement to rewarding a much smaller, often more advantaged group. Every parent wants their children to succeed. This system will reduce achievement in our most disadvantaged communities.

The Government says it’s not proposing to “change the approach to common standards”.

A standard however, clearly expresses what an individual must know or be able to do. Assessment against the standard identifies whether the individual knows it or can do it. By contrast the proposal to report learner outcomes by a 100-point scale leaves it to the general public to interpret what (say) 72 marks means. Regardless of the Government’s stated intention not to change the approach, the use of a 100-point scale is a concern. This is a fundamental part of the proposal that there is not enough information on.

The Government proposal is out for consultation for six weeks. This is an incredibly short period of time for a proposal to overhaul our national assessment system. The PPTA and the wider teaching profession were not privy to the development of it. That does not give us confidence that our feedback on the proposal or required implementation supports will be seriously considered.

The Government timeline is for the first cohort of year 11 students to go through the new system in 2028. In the meantime, students completing the current NCEA and Literacy and Numeracy corequisites need to be supported. There are still significant concerns about the appropriateness of the Literacy and Numeracy corequisites which need to be resolved for this group and considered as part of the development for the new foundational qualification.

____________________________________________________________

In introducing the proposal, the Minister has made some large sweeping statements including that NCEA is broken and must be scrapped. That the flexibility of the system has been over-used and that this means that programmes of teaching and learning are not “coherent and consistent”.

Schools have worked hard to devise course offerings that meet the needs of their communities and ensure that a wide range of achievements have been recognised on learners’ Records of Achievement and by the NCEA. PPTA is concerned that the government’s proposals represent an overcorrection from the flexibility of the present system and this will disadvantage students.

Every student must have opportunity to succeed

The Government says that some skills and knowledge “shouldn’t count” towards a school qualification. An underlying philosophy of a standards-based qualification regime is that achievement is recognised and every student is provided the opportunity to succeed.

A strength of the NCEA is that it can encourage creativity and individual expression, and formally recognise diverse experiences. The Government says that the NCEA is not recognised or valued internationally. This is factually incorrect. It’s this country’s formal, national, secondary school qualification. The Government damages NCEA’s credibility by making these statements.

Confusion between curriculum and assessment

The Government says that a national qualification is “about having a set of standards for teachers to teach to.” That describes the role of the curriculum, and the development and delivery of meaningful programmes in schools. This confusion between what is taught and learned, and how that is evaluated and recorded, permeates the Government’s announcements.

Required subjects

The Government proposal is for a list of “required subjects” to contribute to the NCEA. Up till 2002, the Universities Entrance Board effectively determined the content of school awards such as School Certificate, and therefore constrained schools’ innovation. For a couple of decades we’ve had the flexibility to design meaningful programmes at the local level and have them recognised within the NCEA. Now, the Government wants to take over and decide what’s acceptable and “approved”.

The curriculum is being rewritten into subjects but this work has not been completed or embedded and so it is concerning that such a big jump is being announced for assessment.

Vocational subjects

The Government proposal is for a number of vocational ‘subjects’ to be included on the approved subjects list.

The Government’s plan is that the Industry Skill Councils (ISCs) will “work with industry” to devise these ‘subjects’ which are currently no more than political ideas. ISCs haven’t been established yet and will inherit the workloads and lack of resourcing evident in the Workforce Development Councils that are soon to be abolished. And there’s no guarantee that the industry groups the Government thinks are acceptable will play ball. There’s also no hint of an understanding of the future staffing and resourcing implications for schools.

Foundational Skills Award

The Government proposal is that L1 NCEA will be abolished and replaced by a Foundational Skills Award at Year 11 to recognise literacy and numeracy skills. The extremely poor support for the implementation of Level 1 created an enormous amount of frustration in schools. Any replacement of level one will need to be done with far more resourcing.

A concern we have with this proposal is that “passing” the Foundational Award is a prerequisite for receiving the new L2 qualification. Remember the second-year fifth formers who’d failed to accumulate 200 marks in the days of School Certificate so were held back and made to repeat their Fifth Form (Year 11)?  This prerequisite returns to an attitude that penalises the students who are often already at a disadvantage.

External exams for every subject

The Government has indicated that that externally assessed components will be compulsory in every subject. This position is based on the unfounded assumption that exams are more dependable than other forms of assessment. Exams are undoubtedly quite successful in evaluating how well learners cope with exams. In this way they tend to favour learners from more advantaged backgrounds.

Artificial Intelligence marking

The Government's comments around AI marking are premature and misaligned with the current state of AI capability. There has been no meaningful engagement with the profession, no consideration of the role of teacher professional judgment or the importance of learner engagement. The position appears entirely speculative and disconnected from the realities of classroom practice.

Grade changes

The Government proposal is to replace the “Excellence and Achieved” (sic) grades currently used (which are “difficult to understand”) with “more straightforward subject marking”. This is identified as a mark out of 100 and a letter grade of A-E. The Government insists that they are not seeking to change one “good thing about NCEA” which is that earlier systems compared students against each other.

The Government’s proposal shows a 46% (D) grade as a fail and a 50% (C) grade as a pass. As far as the public sees it, one of these is ‘better’ than the other. We are concerned that this is a return to a way of thinking that meant if you were a second-language learner, someone less comfortable in a school environment, disabled or neurodivergent, you were set up for failure. To characterise three grade boundaries, Achieved, Merit and Excellence as difficult to understand is to demean the intelligence of most.

Rationing of success

The Government proposal is that learners will have to “take five subjects and achieve at least four” to be granted the L2 and L3 certificates. This rationing of success is exactly what abandoning School Certificate and the other ranking devices was intended to overcome.

 This is a significant change in philosophy from qualifications recording achievement to rewarding a much smaller – often more advantaged group. Every parent wants their children to succeed. This system will reduce achievement in our most disadvantaged communities.

The Government says it’s not proposing to “change the approach to common standards”. A standard however clearly expresses what an individual must know or be able to do. Assessment against the standard identifies whether the individual knows it or can do it. By contrast the proposal to report learner outcomes by a 100-point scale leaves it to the general public to interpret what (say) 72 marks means. Regardless of the Government’s stated intention not to change the approach, the use of a 100-point scale is a concern. This is a fundamental part of the proposal that there is not enough information on.

Short consultation period

The Government proposal is out for consultation for six weeks. This is an incredibly short period of time for a proposal to overhaul our national assessment system. The PPTA and the wider teaching profession were not privy to the development of it. That does not give us confidence that our feedback on the proposal or required implementation supports will be seriously considered.

The Government timeline is for the first cohort of year 11 students to go through the new system in 2028. In the meantime, students completing the current NCEA and Literacy and Numeracy corequisites need to be supported. There are still significant concerns about the appropriateness of the Literacy and Numeracy corequisites which need to be resolved for this group and considered as part of the development for the new foundational qualification.